Imperious Entertainment
You are here: Home
Blogs The “P-Word”: Offensive. Unromantic. Powerful Enough to Improve Your Relationship? by Drew Stewart | The “P-Word”: Offensive. Unromantic. Powerful Enough to Improve Your Relationship? by Drew Stewart |
|
|
|
| Written by Drew Stewart | |
| Wednesday, 19 March 2008 | |
You’ve never felt this way about anyone before. You think about them nonstop and feel dizzy when they’re around. If you didn’t believe in soul mates, you do now. Your relationship is rivaled only by the magic of Walt Disney’s fairy tales. And so you’re thrilled when, three and a half years into your relationship, your sweetie invites you to a fancy restaurant for a romantic candlelit dinner for a serious discussion that “has implications for the rest of your lives together.” As you’re finishing your meal, your better half drops a bomb that instantly sucks every ounce of romance out of the air. At the thought of their temerity, you steam in silence, trying to figure out how they could even fix their self-interested lips to utter such a vulgar word. Yes, the “P-word.” Not so fast. Before the two of you jump any brooms together, the person you love would like you to sign a...(gasp) prenup. Although you probably feel as if you've been asked to sign your life away, your partner might have created an opportunity for dialogue that can improve your relationship.
Studies that have been done in this area suggest that having a prenup makes divorce less likely. Heather Mahar of the Harvard Law School recently concluded a study in which she sought to assess whether the common perception that prenuptial agreements increase the likelihood that a marriage will end in divorce. With over half of marriages ending in divorce, she concluded that a good prenuptial agreement might be just what the doctor ordered. Mahar argues that such agreements, if properly drafted and entered into for the right reasons, can actually increase the likelihood that the marriage will be successful because the conversation serves as a form of premarital counseling. ( see Olin Fellow Heather Mahar Examines Prenuptial Agreements) I believe strongly that if a person has worked hard to achieve their assets prior to marriage, they have an equal right to protect those assets from being taken away unfairly. Mahar’s research showed that women were less likely to feel this way. They should get over it. High-earning professional women—especially black professional women—should definitely consider the prenuptial option. In 2004, 26.5 percent of black males ages 18 to 24 were enrolled in college versus 36.5 percent of black women that age, according to the American Council on Education's most recent statistics. The disparity is only widening and translates into more potential black couples where the woman earns more than the man.
Also, discard the stereotype of the dominating male forcing the young bride to sign on the dotted line just minutes before the ceremony. Not only might that be considered coercion, and thus invalidate the agreement, but these days prenuptials are arrived at through joint discussions handled by attorneys well in advance of any marriage ceremony (Actually, lawyers would rather you not have a prenup because they make more money in a messy divorce). And doesn’t it make the most sense to have the joint discussion when both parties are feeling positive about each other and have each other’s best interest at heart, not in the midst of a bitter divorce when the parties are bickering over who gets the toaster. Take 2 seconds to leave a one word comment (at the least). For or Against? Comments
(20)
It is true that marriage is a contract but it is also a covenant. If I were not a believer in God I would be all for it. I do not agree that a person is not mature if they do not believe in having a prenup. (I feel that was implied.) Maturity is not based on legality and whether we think with our heads and or hearts. That said, though statistics have proven one thing and we do leave in a society made up of contracts and laws we are still humans, with human emotions. Therefore, it is only natural for emotions, such as love, to be deciding factors in major decision like marriage. It cannot be looked at from strictly a legal point of view. We must weigh in all the other proponents, and they do weigh in very heavily. Two individuals who have decided to have a prenuptial are in some sense under-minding the covenant of marriage. Marriage was set up by God and should be honored on His terms. Yes, under the Law of Moses divorce was allowed but that was not God's original plan. We have become so desensitized not to the world but to God. We allow formulas, the opinions of others, and/or what we have been taught in classrooms to control our lives. Ask yourself this question, what about the people who come up with these laws and these legal contracts. Why did they come about in the first place? Did the originators of such contracts have lives that were worthy of imitation and are their views ones that I want to promote by writing columns on them and potentially influence people. It is easy to wrap life up into laws and contracts and say it is so simple. The reality is that it is not, and even the people who made legal contracts, like prenuptial agreements, had feelings that lead them to this end. I am sure it was not just some sensible plan for living. So pre-nuptials can work for those who are afraid to commit otherwise. Yes, they will always feel they have a way of escape. However, for me I would be belittling myself if I had to sign a paper that said that there was a chance that I could not make it in my marriage. I know their will be challenges but I also know that I have the willpower and strength of God to make it through anything. A marriage with flaws that lasts until the end is far better than all the money in the world. Marriage is a covenant unto God, this is the superior legal contract.
Well said Blessed and Highly Favored. As a Christian, I couldn't agree with you more. There is no reason possible that two Christian people who are committed to God and each other should ever need a divorce. My God does not conform to the world. Luke 16:15 says that His ways contradict the world's so the world's creation called prenups should not be used by His children. Accordingly, I believe my marraige will last because of my faith in God, because I'm going to choose wisely, and I'm gonna be an awesome God-honoring husband. It is doubtful that I'd ask MY wife to sign a prenup.
HOWEVER, (you knew a however was coming) a lot of people, especially Christian women, want to reference certain parts of the bible but ignore others. Ephesians 5:20 instructs Christians on the roles of a husband and wife in marriage. Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (verse 22). For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (verse 23). Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything (verse 24). The Bible is Crystal clear. It says EVERYTHING! This means that HUSBAND HAS THE FINAL AUTHORITY!!!!! I bet that didn't sit well with a lot of women. Probably made their faces frown up. lol Relax boo. It's fine to let your husband lead because when the husband is lovingly submitting to the will of Jesus like he should be, the wife will in turn lovingly submit to her husband. Husbands are called to love their wives with the same love that Christ showed the church (verse 25). So, submission doesn't mean slavery. A woman who truly subjects herself to her husband actually gains security and contentment in the same way her own children feel secure and content in her care. I need a women who can put her full faith in me and know that I wouldn't intentionally do anything that I didn't think God wanted for her or us. However, in this age of the "independent women", most of the women---especially the so-called-educated women---don't want to submit, but are real quick to reference the bible when it comes to prenups! Don't reference the bible if you aren't willing to abide by ALL the laws in it (which is how most of us are, a la carte Christians who pick and choose parts to suit our desires). So many Christian women I've dated have problems with something as small as taking on their husband's last name without hyphenating it or making their last name their middle name (which I would probably be fine with if she was adamant about it). It just sends a hurtful and untrusting message when women don't want to do the symbolic things that were done in biblical days because the WORLD (there's that worldly influence again) says they are completely independent women who have completely equal authority now.
Hey Drew. It's definitely something to think about. I haven't made up my mind just yet on where I side but I'm interested to read some of the comments that you might get. Thanks for posting!
Hmmmm...well, I didn't sign a pre-nup, but then again, neither of us came into this with any real "assets." I also have enough self-respect and home training to NOT go after this man's trust fund or set-asides that his parents have for him should this not be successful (though here's hoping that's not the case).
I know what is for me, is for me...and while we came into our union with the idea of wanting to build something together, I also know that this means he would not go after anything I had prior to us uniting, and the same goes for me. I think there's a level of pride, human decency and self-respect that comes along with all of this.
Prenup with a clause…
Open wallet surgery… Indeed I had my share of laughs throughout this blog. However, the bottom line phrase remains that “Prenuptial agreements are an intelligent way to protect yourself in the event that something goes wrong—just like insurance.” Hence my break from the dating scene to focus on other matters, I admit this topic isn’t one I’ve given great thought to in recent times. However, before this point I wasn’t for them, nor was I against them. I think the analogy to death and life insurance focuses the topic a little more adding a different perspective how one would naturally view the implications of such an agreement. Just as death, I don’t think anyone goes into a marriage wanting it to fail, but the fact remains that many of them do fail and I surely don’t think having a prenuptial agreement head the top 10 list of “why marriages fail!” Although I feel true love has no limits and when a union is as strong as it should be especially if talking about marriage, something which is intended to be a lifetime commitment, one would naturally give any and everything to ensure the happiness of their spouse, financially and beyond. Yet, I think one who believes they are entitled to another’s assets and things acquired before you even step foot in the picture is a rather warped view. Prenup doesn’t mean you lose and walk away with nothing in event of a divorce…although I wouldn’t be opposed to a line in the agreement stating “if you cheat on me or decide to you want to date men, you get nothing!” : ) Hey…I’m not about to start a “get a prenuptial agreement” revolution…but I do feel that this along with the topic of having a living will are things we should dialogue about more. Good blog Drew!
Drew, I must admit I was fan of your blogs. BUT TODAY! You have out done yourself! Let me get right to my issue with your blog…
"And although Juanita deserves a little change for putting up with MJ’s …she has not earned half of the assets of the most effectively marketed athlete of all time. After all, it was Michael Jeffrey Jordan that successfully developed his brand and catapulted himself and the NBA into prominence around the world, not Juanita.”.... ARE YOU SERIOUS?!? A little change? You have grossly underestimated Juanita’s role in the Jordan’s’. Jordan, the down to earth, family man, with great character, made him marketable! She hid that he was unfaithful to her and his family for years, she hid his gambling problem his entire career. She kept him marketable! If you did some research you would have found that Jordan's marketability almost dropped significantly when it came out that he was not this wonderful family man that made everyone love him off the court. Once again Juanita kept him from losing endorsements by not going through with the divorce. If she could give him another chance surely America would. She ran his organizations. She kept all of his secrets and she gave him a family! Michael would have been a different man if he was not married and had a woman to hold everything together. Look at the career of black athletes that are not married and have children out of wedlock. There is an obvious correlation between marketability and having a family in our country. Now let's talk about the everyday man. My uncle is a very successful Senior Executive in music business and has been married for twenty years now. He regularly states that being married is the best decision he has ever made. He also credits his success to being married and to his wife and children. It made him a different man. She has done as much work as he has if not more. I am VERY disappointed that you would underestimate the importance of a wife and position that she plays behind the scene to make her man look like the great flawless man that he often is NOT.
Drew, I must admit I was fan of your blogs. BUT TODAY! You have out done yourself! Let me get right to my issue with your blog…
"And although Juanita deserves a little change for putting up with MJ’s …she has not earned half of the assets of the most effectively marketed athlete of all time. After all, it was Michael Jeffrey Jordan that successfully developed his brand and catapulted himself and the NBA into prominence around the world, not Juanita.”.... ARE YOU SERIOUS?!? A little change? You have grossly underestimated Juanita’s role in the Jordan’s’. Jordan, the down to earth, family man, with great character, made him marketable! She hid that he was unfaithful to her and his family for years, she hid his gambling problem his entire career. She kept him marketable! If you did some research you would have found that Jordan's marketability almost dropped significantly when it came out that he was not this wonderful family man that made everyone love him off the court. Once again Juanita kept him from losing endorsements by not going through with the divorce. If she could give him another chance surely America would. She ran his organizations. She kept all of his secrets and she gave him a family! Michael would have been a different man if he was not married and had a woman to hold everything together. Look at the career of black athletes that are not married and have children out of wedlock. There is an obvious correlation between marketability and having a family in our country. Now let's talk about the everyday man. My uncle is a very successful Senior Executive in music business and has been married for twenty years now. He regularly states that being married is the best decision he has ever made. He also credits his success to being married and to his wife and children. It made him a different man. She has done as much work as he has if not more. I am VERY disappointed that you would underestimate the importance of a wife and position that she plays behind the scene to make her man look like the great flawless man that he often is NOT. Also, This conversation is a prime example of how cheapend marriage has become in our society. I read this articles about three months ago. This is the best response I have heard regarding this issue by Rabbi Shumley... "The greatest lesson in marriage is having someone with whom you can be totally natural. The only time that we are free to be ourselves, to be completely natural, is within the comfort of our own home. Indeed, in my opinion, this constitutes the only real reason to marry. After all, why give up so many freedoms for so paltry a payoff? Is having someone to share the rent with or have a child with really worth the total sacrifice of independence? Unless, of course, the main benefit is to gain your very humanity, to finally have someone in your life around whom there is no pretense. At work everyone judges you by productivity. But when you come home you don’t have to do, you can just be. But with a prenuptial we have the very reverse of this. Not only can you not trust enough to be yourself around the person you marry, but worse – it places them as suspect number one! Simply put, if you cannot trust the person you are marrying to know that they are not marrying you for you money, then you should not be marrying them. You may argue: “But what if something goes awry? How can we know what the future will hold in the way of resentment or vengeance?” Answer: better to lose your money, and at least have the possibility of finding someone with whom you can be totally natural, then to take those pre-nup precautions and create an air of skepticism from the very get-go. Man and wife are intended to become one flesh. And it is not just "love" that makes this possible. More so than love even, it is the "little things" that sew the human seams. Joint bank accounts under the same name. A shared a last name. And mind you – a woman need not take the man's name – surely a man can take his wife’s’. I couldn’t care either way, so long as their surname is identical. It is the sharing, the exchange which is important. Don’t lose sight of what is really essential in a marriage. DO not be trapped by your money – instead allow it to buy your freedom." - Rabbi Shumely (Shalom in the home)
Drew, as usual this is absolutely intriguing, thought provoking post. I thought I knew what you were going to say, but you surprised me. I think pre-nups are a good option for many people and have seen the ways that not having one can destroy someone's life. (like the self made small business-person)
However, I would also surmise that most of those marriages ending in divorce were not ones in which the couple entered into the relationship as a spiritual partnership. I could be wrong, but few of the divorcees that I know (regardless if they are both Christian) actually talked about their marriage in spiritual terms. Too often, one person just accepts the fact that the other goes to church as proof enough of their spiritual stability to last in the marriage. (not to mention the fact that we like to ignore certain parts of the Bible--thats a whole nother convo :-) Now, I am not trying to sound 'holier than thou', cause Lord knows that I have done some stuff in my days (Amen for forgiveness!). However, there are WAAAY too many people that have not set up their marriages in a way that would preclude them from the necessity of a prenup. Drew, I think you did a great job of showing how and why a prenup might be the ideal for many couples. I know you asked for a ONE word response, but that was the best I could do ;-)
That's Juanitas own dumbass fault is she wanted to play the "stand by your man" role and "keep him marketable". So what she ran a few organizations and charities and popped out his babies (that's what child support is for--and she's gonna get a whole lot of it!)
I'm not underestimating the role wives play. Just saying that Junaita didn't do 150 million dollars worth of concealing and supporting. She knew what she was getting her old ass into when she married a young, crazy basketball God. Jordan was a party animal when they met during his second season with the Chicago Bulls and I bet she was attracted to the same confident, "I can have any woman I want" swagger that all the other women MJ messed with were attracted to. Oh, AND IF YOU'D DONE ALL OF YOUR RESEARCH, you wouldn't have said "Look at the career of black athletes that are not married and have children out of wedlock". MJ is a black athlete that was not married and had a child out of wedlock!!! Why do you think he married Juanita? MJ was too stupid to put a condom on and HE didn't want the negative publicity so he married her after Jeffrey was born. Bottom line: MJ married one his groupies (who knew she wasn't Mike's only women when they got married according to my source that knows her) and she was fine with him cheating for a long time because he kept her living lavishly. She didn't do him any favors. If you ask me, he did her a favor by "doing the right thing" and marrying her ass.
For those who couldn't tell, the previous comment is mine, not Myrah's. I just forgot to change the name after I transfered her comment from Facebook.
The public did not know that she was pregnant at the time of their marriage... MY POINT is that Jordan became this marketing machine ONLY after he had a family and appeared to be the perfect family man. Regardless of her being a groupie or not. She had a part in who Jordan became. You can't deny that!! She raised his children and took care of his home.
The public DID know. She was NOT pregnant at the time of their marriage because Jeffrey was born in November of 1988. They didn't wed until almost a year later in Sept. of 1989. That's how the public knew. The baby was here.
As far as I'm concerned, she was and still is a gold digger who chases young men who are too naive to realize just how successful they will become. Currently, Juanita is dating a man almost 20 years her junior, a 29 year old investment banker from the Chicago branch of Credit Suisse. She's still gold digging after younger men. ( She was 29 when Jordan, then 25, got her pregnant.) Now, I think she should get alimony and child support for "raising his kids and taking care of his home." And that's where I draw the line. Do you honestly think she every did anything around the house? Jordan had plenty of hired help---cooks, house maids, and landscapers---so she never had to lift a finger except to pull credit cards out of her purse at Louis Vuitton. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether a women who doesn't actually do anything to substantial affect the man's endorsement offers, business ventures into sports apparel, restaurants, NBA team ownership, or entertainment. The focus of my piece was prenups but I guess discussion of a prenup in MJ's case is a moot point since a prenup with a clause that said "Juanita gets 0% of any wealth I acquire during the marriage" is the only thing that would have saved him. Hopefully, younger NBA players are observing MJ's case and deciding to prevent these women who knowingly marry promiscuous ballers and then divorce them for that reason from getting their greedy paws on their fortunes once they really blow up.
* We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether a women who doesn't actually do anything to substantial affect the man's endorsement offers, business ventures into sports apparel, restaurants, NBA team ownership, or entertainment deserves any of his money just for being his wife.
 written by Theri' Pickens , August 14, 2007
MJ aside.
I'm not an a la carte Christian; I take the full order. Pre-nups are insurance contracts. Yet, other insurance contracts based on the understanding of our world as uncertain. I am not willing to admit that I am uncertain about the love and commitment of the man I am planning to submit to. So far, against. Although, Drew, you did make me think about how useful the conversation is. :)
"Bottom line: MJ married one his groupies (who knew she wasn't Mike's only women when they got married according to my source that knows her) and she was fine with him cheating for a long time because he kept her living lavishly. She didn't do him any favors. If you ask me, he did her a favor by "doing the right thing" and marrying her ass."
Actually, Drew, he did BOTH of them a favor- made him into a marketable family man, and made her legitimate in the eyes of God, her mama, and the state of Illinois so she wouldn't be just another groupie "baby mama." It's not like he got nothing out of this deal.
Drew, your argument for why people should get prenups is very valid. But since the debate has been about atlheltes in particular, I would like to add that a lot of these athletes are as shallow as their women. Especially the not so attractive ones that marry "dime pieces" because they were never able to get a woman that looks like that before they got rich. These types of marriages are shams from the gate, so if a man is shallow enough to marry a woman JUST for her looks in order to make himself look better, he deserves to get got for his money!
lol at the last two comments. Both are 100% on point. I should let it be known that I don't have any respect for Michael Jordan as a man or husband....maybe that could be the next blog!
FOR and AGAINST. Just depends!! :)
Drew you have a good argument, but Blessed and Highly Favored was just as convincing, maybe even more so. because the white men that created the legal system (and the prenup) run the gamut from a few liberal idealists, to a bunch of racist, sexist, slave-owning, power-hungry bigots. i would definitely rather trust my emotions than to trust a system that have never had black people or black women's best interests at heart.
And where did all this Juanita Jordan hate come from, lol? i agree with tiffany, sugar daddies and dime pieces go hand in hand. and they both get what they deserve if they decide to get married or have children.
I want you all to go to my note on Facebook about this subject:
http://morehouse.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2226300995&id=23600895&index=38 Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved.       |
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, 19 March 2008 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Subscribe
Subscribe to our free week in review newsletter. The "name" field is optional.
Do the Right Thing
Here lies the "Do the Right Thing" poster to remind people what they're supposed to do.
